IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34146 of 2009(K)
1. M.SUNITHA, W/O.RAVEENDRAN, RESIDING
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY),
For Petitioner :SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :26/11/2009
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.34146 OF 2009
------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of November, 2009
J U D G M E N T
———————-
1. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1 to P3 notices issued
under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for
realising amounts due under awards of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, in OP(MV) Nos.560/03, 649/03 and
903/03.
2. Petitioner is the registered owner of one of the
vehicles involved in the motor accident, from which a total
number of 20 claim cases arose before the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal. By virtue of the award in the above 3 cases, the
insurer of the vehicle was given liberty to realise the
compensation amount from the petitioner and from the driver of
the vehicle. According to the petitioner she was not having
knowledge about the award and only when notices of recovery
steps were received, she came to know about the same. It is
further submitted that immediately she had applied for and
obtained certified copies of the awards and appeals were already
filed before this court as per MACA.Nos:2519/09, 155/09 and
2524/09 respectively.
W.P.(C).34146/09-K 2
3. It is stated that eventhough stay applications were
moved along with the appeals, the same could not be considered
by the appellate court since the delay in filing the appeals has to
be condoned. The appeals are posted awaiting return of notice
in the delay petitions. Since coercive steps are now being
pursued for recovery of the amounts, the petitioner is seeking
indulgence of this court to direct the respondents to keep in
abeyance such steps till the stay petitions are considered by the
appellate court.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Having
considered facts and circumstances of the case I am of the
opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the
respondents to keep in abeyance recovery steps for a reasonable
period.
5. Accordingly the respondents are directed to refrain
from further steps of recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to
Ext.P1 to P3 notices for a period of 6 (six) weeks from today.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb